JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP appearing for respondent State and Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 waive service of notice of rule.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Collector rejecting the request of the petitioner for compensation of the lands acquired for the roads under the gram panchayat on the ground that the request for compensation is belated.

3. Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the year 2005 a measurement was done and the measurement sheet recorded the land which was acquired for the road. He would invite the attention of the court to various communications of the years 2008 to 2010 apropos his representation wherein the Executive Engineer of the Panchayat Division, Godhra responded to his request by saying that the competent authority that can decide on the question of compensation is the gram panchayat and not the concerned authority.

3.1 Mr. Shah further submitted that on 16.11.2011 again the Executive Engineer’s office opined that it is the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Mora who has to take an appropriate decision. Failing to secure an appropriate decision regarding compensation of the acquisition of his land for the purposes of roads of panchayat, the petitioner approached this court by filing SCA No. 11701 of 2012. This court on 06.09.2012 passed the following order:

“1. Leave to add State of Gujarat through the Secretary, Revenue Department as party respondent No.5. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Asmita Patel, learned A.G.P. appearing on advance copy for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. It is contended in the petition that the land belonging to the petitioner has been utilized as road way back in the year 1960. It is alleged in the petition that the same is being done without following due procedure as envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is further alleged that even no compensation is paid to the petitioner.

4. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 are directed to look into the grievance voiced by the petitioner in this petition by treating this petition as representation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and pass order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

5. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.”

3.2 Based on the order which was initially not complied with compelling the petitioner to file contempt, the impugned order has been passed. Reading of the impugned order indicates that the Collector has not entertained the request of the petitioner on two grounds firstly it was in 1960 that his ancestors have objected to the acquisition which was rejected and secondly on the ground of the request for compensation being belated. This opinion of delay was essentially based on the circular dated 15.01.2004 of the revenue department.

3.3 Mr. Shah would submit that once the court had directed the authorities to decide the representation, solely on the ground of delay it could not have been rejected. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. MIDC [(2013) 1 SCC 353] wherein the court held that right to property is a human right. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020 (2) SCC 569.

4. Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State vehemently opposed the petition justifying the order of the Collector dated 19.03.2015. He would submit that the Collector by the impugned order not only decided the issue on merits